Did God Invent Swords? - Logic Fallacies and Anachronisms (page 3)

processor

Exodus 15:3: "Jehovah is a manly person of war"

1 Samuel 2:6: "Jehovah is a Killer"

Why should he not have invented swords?

tec

It doesn't matter if 'Sword' is the correct word for the spinning 'Thing' or not. If the spinning 'Thing' was lethal by design, then it was a weapon by default. And there's no moral difference between the assertion that God introduced humans to weapons vs. God introduced humans to swords.

At the time the account was written, did humans not use swords and weapons to protect what was precious to them (including life) from those intent upon taking it?

Does it not make sense that whomever wrote the account (or the scribe that penned it) would have used imagery that the people of the time could understand (or that they themselves could understand), in order to get the point across? Rather than God have a literal flaming sword in front of the tree of life (which is itself, symbolic of... life)?

So it is not the flaming sword that is the point... it is that the way to the tree of life was barred, the life was guarded, and it could not be taken by force.

Peace,

tammy

sir82

the way to the tree of life was barred, the life was guarded, and it could not be taken by force.

"Could not be taken by force".

What would have happened if someone had tried to take it by force?

Spin it how you like, it still sounds like God created the first weapon.

tec

Remember too that God gave Adam and Eve animal skins to wear, killing animals, they ones that were at peace with humans, and not for a sacrifice as Abel killed sheep for a sacrifice. Why could God not have provided wool clothing? Did Adam and Eve continue to make

hide clothing, somehow know how to shear sheep, spin thread, knit clothing?

God killed no animals to give Adam and Eve their skin to wear. God gave Adam and Eve the skin/vessels which we now have... as opposed to the spiritual vessel that Adam and Eve had before. Vessels that could move within and without the spiritual (the garden of eden is a spiritual 'place'). It is just tradition that has men believing that God killed animals and gave their skin to Adam and Eve to wear as clothing. Their nakedness was not of the flesh. Why would that be a sin? Why would that be something to feel ashamed about? That is man's hangup, probably because of a misunderstanding of this. Their actual nakedness was that they could not hide their shame, or their sin within them. But instead of allowing them to die (in spirit... or their offspring at least) God granted them flesh (long garments of skin) and that flesh bore the sin and death into itself... and that is why we have sin and death within our flesh. It is like a barrier, keeping death and sin to the flesh... (unless we sin in or against the spirit as well). It was a provision, for Adam/Eve perhaps, but certainly for their offspring (us).

Like you said, he could have spun clothing for them. No need to have killed animals to cover their naked flesh.

Peace,

tammy

tec

Spin it how you like, it still sounds like God created the first weapon.

More like a barrier than cannot be crossed. So I guess that might depend on how you think about protecting or guarding life from those who would take it.

Peace,

tammy

King Solomon

TEC SAID:

God killed no animals to give Adam and Eve their skin to wear.

Well, of course not: everyone KNOWS God was the founder of ASPCA, and considered the Father of Animal Rights Activists!

It's not like He would demand the spilled blood of slaughtered animals to be poured out on the ground before eating them, or that he'd finding the aroma of burning sacrifical animals to be pleasing to Him, or that he'd declare open hunting season on the animals after the Flood! God LOVES animals.....

tec

Just so that some might be able to 'see' it:

"I desire mercy, not sacrifice." Hosea 6:6

"You do not delight in sacrifice, or I would bring it; you do not take pleasure in burn offerings. The sacrifice of God(or my sacrifice, O God) is a broken spirit, a broken and contrite heart."

"Sacrifice and offering you did not desire, but my ears you have peirced; burnt offerings and sin offerings you did not require. Then I said, here I am... it is written about me in the scroll... I desire to do your will; your law is within my heart." Psalm 40:6-8

"I have no need of a bull from your stall, or of goats from your pens, for every animal of the forest is mine, and the cattle on a thousand hills. I know every bird in the mountains, and the creatures of the field are mine. If I were hungry I would not tell you, for the world is mine and all that is in it. Do I eat the flesh of bulls or drink the blood of goats? Sacrifice thank offerings to God, fulfill your vows to the Most High, and call upon me in the day of trouble; I will deliver you, and you will honor me." Psalm 50:8-15

And one on fasting:

"Is not this the kind of fasting I have chosen: to loose the chains of injustice and untie the cords of the yoke, to set the oppressed free and break every yoke? Is it not to share your food with the hungry and to provide the poor wanderer with shelter- when you see the naked, to clothe him and not to turn away from your own flesh and blood."

I think God gives a pretty good description on what He wants from us... and what He considers sacrifice and fasting to be.

Consider that Christ obeyed God, even to the point of death. He called down mercy for those who struck him; and forgiveness. Laid his life down for others. Acted in love for us all. That is exactly the kind of 'sacrifice' God asks of us. That is exactly the kind of sacrifice that Christ gave.

Animal sacrifice was written about in the law... but so was divorce for any reason... and that was not a law that God gave either. Moses gave it, because of the limitations of the people. With all of God's words in the prophets to the contrary of sacrifice, one might consider that this is the same... done because the people could understand no better, or because they demanded it (perhaps because other nations did the same even), due to their own hard hearts. Perhaps it was the only thing that they would understand, leading up to trying to understand the sacrifice of Christ.

Peace,

tammy

TD

Does it not make sense that whomever wrote the account (or the scribe that penned it) would have used imagery that the people of the time could understand (or that they themselves could understand), in order to get the point across? Rather than God have a literal flaming sword in front of the tree of life (which is itself, symbolic of... life)?

So it is not the flaming sword that is the point... it is that the way to the tree of life was barred, the life was guarded, and it could not be taken by force.

Well I hate to repeat if the point was not understood, but again: If the spinning flaming thing was lethal to corporeal creatures by design, then it was a weapon by definition and it doesn't matter what the type was.

Contrariwise, if it was not lethal, then the question of why it was perceived as such is certainly a valid one.

tec

Does it have to be lethal in order to prevent a way back in?

Peace,

tammy

Crisis of Conscience

Bookmarked

Did God Invent Swords? - Logic Fallacies and Anachronisms

Share this